Rickson Gracie FAQ

[Jeff Goldblum]

Whats Ricksons relationship like with his cousins? Renzo, Carlos Jr, Ralph,Cesar(if that counts)?

What about Rorion? Do you know if he still keeps in touch with his cousins?

pretty sure he's always been close with Carlos jr..they grew up and trained together and with rolls.. and there's a video of him making a speech when carlos recieves his coral belt..and they always look friendly @ bjj tournaments.

not sure about the rest, but id assume he'd be pretty tight with Renzo and ralph .. didn't they all train and corner each other @ PRIDE events ?..

 

[BJJ Coffee Drinker]

I was watching my copy of Colosseum 2000 the other day and I found it pretty interesting that someone like Saulo Ribeiro, who is so highly revered in the BJJ community today, was fighting on the same card as Rickson and got absolutely destroyed by Kondo, whilst Rickson dismantled and choked out Funkai, who was better than Kondo and people give Rickson shit for being overrated.

I think my point is that some people seem to think of Rickson as some distant figure in the past, yet modern (well i guess he retired again, but whatever) gurus like Saulo were actually fighting around the same time as him and on the same cards against lesser competition and looked like shit. It was also worth mentioning that even though you had Saulo, Sperry and other great catch and BJJ guys Rickson was the only one that actually scored a submission! I guess the haters will respond to this by saying that "Rickson had experience in MMA and fighting bla bla bla" but I think this just strengthens the point that Rickson was an experienced and good fighter, and more so than someone like Saulo.

By the time this event happened, Kondo was by far the much more dangerous fighter. Funaki then (and probably still) was a more technical and superior grappler to Yuki Kondo. But, Kondo was a much more vicious and superior striker who was accustomed to maiming grapplers with with his striking and takedown defense. Funaki was far past his prime, older, and battered when Rickson fought him. As far as I'm concerned, Kondo was the far superior fighter at that time of the event. If Rickson had fought Kondo that night, I would not be surprised at all if the same thing that happened to Saulo happened to Rickson.

And from Rickson to Sperry mma wise, Rickson cannot compare to Sperry at all. Mario Sperry fought much more well rounded and dangerous fighters who were of much higher calibur talent than anyone Rickson has fought. His level of competition was much tougher than anyone Rickson had fought in the past or ever will.

 

[Title Fight Productions]

I can understand the negative reaction. Calling striking a lottery is silly, ignorant, and offensive to most martial artists. It is offensive to me personally.

If Rickson thinks striking is such a lottery, then he should be able to take a striking match with the skilled champions and still win his fair share. After all, it's just cha

You must have missed the recent "MMA" fight between two BJJ BB's in Serra vs. Lytle.:icon_neut

The point you are missing is the point Rickson is trying to make. You are at greater risk of taking damage if the fight is standing.

 

[Title Fight Productions]

A good striker will definitely control his opponent on the feet. It's just an indirect and subtle form of control that honestly most grapplers simply do not comprehend due to their own inexperience with it.

In a striking only match maybe.

He learns how to force openings in his opponent so that he can attack just as safely as you would attack in BJJ.

Not even close to being true!

Takedown (get reversed)

No instant damage, not as dangerous as getting countered striking

Advance to sidemount (get caught in a submission during the pass)

Dangerous but not doesn't happen in the pass that much.

Advance to mount (guy gets his guard back)

Back to a neutral position is not dangerous. Throwing a lazy jab that is countered by an overhand right is dangerous.

Submit or punch (guy escapes from the mount)

Again, him escaping isn't instantly dangerous to you.

 

[Title Fight Productions]

And from Rickson to Sperry mma wise, Rickson cannot compare to Sperry at all. Mario Sperry fought much more well rounded and dangerous fighters who were of much higher calibur talent than anyone Rickson has fought. His level of competition was much tougher than anyone Rickson had fought in the past or ever will.

Not in the 90's imo.

 

[Balto]

Not even close to being true!

Go spar with an accomplished striker who just toys with you on the feet and get back to me. Then try and tell me that he didn't force you to second guess yourself and make mistakes to open yourself up. The entire striking game is based around controlling your opponent, breaking his rhythm, and catching him with the openings you just created.

Going against a good striker makes you feel just as helpless as going against a good grappler. You usually know exactly what he is going to do, yet he is still able to do it again and again regardless.

The real funny part about this is that if you guys go into a striking forum, you'll see them post the same exact silly stuff about grappling too. They think grappling is something that only works if you are huge, that it's really dangerous because you can't get away from the opponent so you can get subbed at any time, etc. Most strikers are downright terrified of grappling because they don't understand it. Unfortunately, most grapplers are the same way right back.

The guys who are able to mix the two well are doing the best in MMA these days.

 

[Balto]

Trying to prove whether striking or grappling is safer is pretty laughable. It comes down to personal style and both are pretty effective.

Why do you think a lot of MMA fighters have a gameplan of trying to keep things standing? For them, they feel that standing is a safer and more certain way to get the win. Likewise, a lot of MMA fighters try to keep things on the ground at all costs. For them, the ground game is safer and more certain.

With guys who are pretty close in both, grappling does not always win out either. It is very dependent on personal preference.

Why else would some of the top MMA fighters choose to strike when they could choose to grapple? They think that it is the best way to win. Striking does not always please the crowd. Slower paced, technical striking matches tend to bore casual fans. Yet some fighters still stick to the gameplan no matter what. Lyoto Machida has a good ground game too, yet he prefers to stick to his striking gameplan in MMA even though it bores fans. He does it because he feels it's the safest and most effective way to get a win.

If Rickson fought Machida, do you really think the outcome would be much of a lottery?

 

[Title Fight Productions]

Why else would some of the top MMA fighters choose to strike when they could choose to grapple? They think that it is the best way to win.

Because striking is the quickest way to finish a fight with the least amount of energy spent. You see they want to strike because they think they can knock there opponent out and end the fight quick.......... but what about the guy getting knocked out?:icon_neut

MMA fighters today are about beating the crap out of there opponent as fast as they can so they play the riskier game of striking. This is exactly what Rickson is talking about. The difference between "the old guard" and the new MMA fighter. There are alot of reasons for the the difference including rules and time restrictions.

but again, your point only proves my point, ya dig?

 

[Balto]

Because striking is the quickest way to finish a fight with the least amount of energy spent. You see they want to strike because they think they can knock there opponent out and end the fight quick.......... but what about the guy getting knocked out?:icon_neut

MMA fighters today are about beating the crap out of there opponent as fast as they can so they play the riskier game of striking. This is exactly what Rickson is talking about. The difference between "the old guard" and the new MMA fighter. There are alot of reasons for the the difference including rules and time restrictions.

but again, your point only proves my point, ya dig?

Machida chose to go the distance in a lot of his fights to get a decision. That's hardly the quickest way to win a fight with the least amount of energy spent. However, at some point in time, he must have decided for his own self that it was the safest and surest strategy for him.

Again, there are examples of risky strikers, safe strikers, risky grapplers, safe grapplers, etc. BJJ usually stresses the safe grappler style, and the MMA fans seem to love risky strikers the most, but risky striking definitely does not translate to all styles of striking. See the Machida example above. How many times did fans complain about his "boring" safe striking? Just like how fans complain about those "boring" safe BJJ fighters with their positioning.

Ultimately if you want to believe that grappling is safer, that's fine. Everyone can make his own decision. However, there are enough top MMA fighters who disagree with your assessment and prove it wrong in fights that you can't really say that it is anything more than a personal opinion.

 

[Title Fight Productions]

you can't really say that it is anything more than a personal opinion.

Well of course, thats pretty much the case for most things argued on these forums. But i can say that its my opinion that what i and others posted in response to your opinion makes sense. I will wait and see if anyone else agrees with your side of the arguement..... although i may be waiting for awhile since this is a grappling forum.:icon_surp


I agree with all the things you are saying in regards to striking, im more of a striker than a grappler myself. But i will stick with my thoughts that playing the striking game is more risky than playing the grappling game.

 

[Ninjamurf]

By the time this event happened, Kondo was by far the much more dangerous fighter. Funaki then (and probably still) was a more technical and superior grappler to Yuki Kondo. But, Kondo was a much more vicious and superior striker who was accustomed to maiming grapplers with with his striking and takedown defense. Funaki was far past his prime, older, and battered when Rickson fought him. As far as I'm concerned, Kondo was the far superior fighter at that time of the event. If Rickson had fought Kondo that night, I would not be surprised at all if the same thing that happened to Saulo happened to Rickson.

And from Rickson to Sperry mma wise, Rickson cannot compare to Sperry at all. Mario Sperry fought much more well rounded and dangerous fighters who were of much higher calibur talent than anyone Rickson has fought. His level of competition was much tougher than anyone Rickson had fought in the past or ever will.

I always find it funny when someone comes up with this argument. Funaki was 31...ten years YOUNGER than Rickson. And, interestingly enough, Funaki was 2-1 against that same vaunted "superior" striker, Yuki Kondo. Yes, Pancrase, limited strikes, whatever. I think Rickson would have done the same against Yuki that he did against Funaki, who, by the way, was considered one of the premier fighters in Japan at the time. Kondo has just as many submission victories as knockouts. It's not like he was a young Crocop or anything.

Oh, and in 2000 Sperry hadn't beaten ANYBODY of note except Vernon White. And your closing comment or "ever will" is ridiculous. Rickson turns 52 this year.

 

[mtruitt76]

Well of course, thats pretty much the case for most things argued on these forums. But i can say that its my opinion that what i and others posted in response to your opinion makes sense. I will wait and see if anyone else agrees with your side of the arguement..... although i may be waiting for awhile since this is a grappling forum.:icon_surp

Well I agree with Balto for the most part. I think about every point he has made is valid. While I believe upsets, where an inferior fighter beats a superior fighter, are more likely to occur in a striking art verses a grappling art, they do not occur enough to qualify striking as a "lottery".

Grappling arts have their own Douglas vs. Tyson moment. Karelin lost to Gardner, Gable lost to Owings, Guilherme Mendes lost to Paulo Melo. I think you will find fewer examples in grappling arts vs. striking arts, but these upsets are not common enough to qualify striking arts as a "lottery". That is just an exaggeration.

 

[Title Fight Productions]

Well I agree with Balto for the most part. I think about every point he has made is valid. While I believe upsets, where an inferior fighter beats a superior fighter, are more likely to occur in a striking art verses a grappling art, they do not occur enough to qualify striking as a "lottery".

Grappling arts have their own Douglas vs. Tyson moment. Karelin lost to Gardner, Gable lost to Owings, Guilherme Mendes lost to Paulo Melo. I think you will find fewer examples in grappling arts vs. striking arts, but these upsets are not common enough to qualify striking arts as a "lottery". That is just an exaggeration.

SCRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rado]

Grappling arts have their own Douglas vs. Tyson moment. Karelin lost to Gardner, Gable lost to Owings, Guilherme Mendes lost to Paulo Melo.

Royler lost to Eddie Bravo

 

[Stun Gun]

rickson is one of my bjj heroes. I hope I can go to Brazil and train with him. I'm sure I'm going to learn a lot from him

 

[BJJ Coffee Drinker]

I always find it funny when someone comes up with this argument. Funaki was 31...ten years YOUNGER than Rickson. And, interestingly enough, Funaki was 2-1 against that same vaunted "superior" striker, Yuki Kondo. Yes, Pancrase, limited strikes, whatever. I think Rickson would have done the same against Yuki that he did against Funaki, who, by the way, was considered one of the premier fighters in Japan at the time. Kondo has just as many submission victories as knockouts. It's not like he was a young Crocop or anything.

Oh, and in 2000 Sperry hadn't beaten ANYBODY of note except Vernon White. And your closing comment or "ever will" is ridiculous. Rickson turns 52 this year.

I'm not saying Funaki was old compared to Rickson. Funaki as a fighter compared to Kondo at the time, was old, beaten down, with much wear and tear and on the verge of retiring. In fight years, his body was older than Kondo and Rickson combined.

And yes, he beat Kondo and I already mentioned he has a superior ground game compared to Yuki. But you can't argue that Kondo was still the better striker out of the two and being younger produced a much more dangerous challenge to Rickson style wise. IMO, Saulo that night got the worse end of that deal.

 

[Balto]

SCRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lol

I respect where you are coming from man. It's not crazy to argue that grappling might be safer than striking in some ways. But there are enough counter examples to see the other argument too.

The main reason why people take offense to comments like these from Rickson is not that he holds his particular opinion. It is more along the lines of the fact that he is repeatedly criticizing others for having different opinions than he does.

The empirical evidence weighs in favor of the more modern MMA training style, and Rickson himself is not active in high level MMA (fighting or coaching) anymore, so constantly criticizing the technique of MMA fighters today rubs many people the wrong way.

 

[Jeff Goldblum]

Royler lost to Eddie Bravo

that's more like Lennox Lewis losing to Hasim Rahman

 

[nontheanarch]

awesome that you did this, thanks TS

 

[Rado]

that's more like Lennox Lewis losing to Hasim Rahman

Actually, that's more of a case of "to each his own".